When I left off last night on this particular matter, I had said that there are at least three different types of situations that I feel have to be dealt with in regard to these unfinished estates; or three classes of problems within the overall problem which need to be looked at. I would consider the first of these three to be developments of an amenity nature which have not been completed by the developer, even though prescribed in the original planning permission. In so far as that particular situation is concerned, I do say that the law we have is sufficient until it is proved wanting to have these developments carried out.
The second class I would mention are the amenity developments of various kinds which are obviously required for the benefit of the public who live in these estates but which were not prescribed in the original planning permission granted to the developer. In this case, I do not believe we should, could, or that it would be desirable to amend the law so that the developer could be nailed down to do works of which he had no knowledge when doing the estate and which will now cost him money which he may not have. Even if he has the money, he did not budget for it in his original development programme in relation to that estate and these cases must be dealt with out of the public purse. That is the feeling I have about that second situation.
Then there is, generally, a third group which might fall out of either the first or second group, where, again, the estate is unfinished—things missing and in such a condition that they are intolerable in so far as the public who live there are concerned. Even if they might fall within the first category, that is, prescribed works which should have been done according to the original planning permission but have not been done, the situation now is that the developer, or his heirs or representatives are no longer identifiable or, in other cases, even though identifiable, are no longer solvent. They may be bankrupt or the company may have gone out of existence.
One way or another, we have these cases relating to the first point I made and we have the developers, or those we can recognise as carrying responsibility, but who are insolvent or bankrupt for one reason or another. We could nail them down but they cannot do the work because they have nothing with which to do it. In that case, I cannot see that we can reasonably expect the public who are suffering as a result of this situation to be left in the present state. Again, I think it must fall to the public purse to provide what has been omitted or neglected, for whatever the cause in the past.
These three main groups are the headings under which one must look at the situation. I feel that what I have said as to how generally the three situations must be dealt with would probably be regarded as the only reasonable way in which they can be approached. Statements made here during the discussion so far—I do not know by whom but I gathered this from the discussions—would seem to imply, without being particularly specific about it, that, for instance, in the case of an estate not taken over, certain services were not being rendered by the local authority merely because of the technicality that the estate had not yet been taken over. But the taking over of the estate, in my estimation, has nothing whatever to do with the effectiveness of the services which could be rendered, should be rendered and are being rendered to other citizens of this city and throughout the country by other local authorities. I may be wrong in what I have gathered, that refuse collection is being neglected or not done in some of those areas.
